Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38075631›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2023

Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for manganese.

EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA), Dominique Turck, Torsten Bohn, Jacqueline Castenmiller, Stefaan de Henauw, Karen-Ildico Hirsch-Ernst, Helle Katrine Knutsen, Alexandre Maciuk, Inge Mangelsdorf, Harry J McArdle and 15 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Safety of frozen paste from blanched, whole migratory locust (EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026
    Article
  3. Study on Natural Background Levels of Iron and Manganese in Groundwater of Yinchuan Plain.Water environment research : a research publication of the Water Environment Federation · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Metal Content inFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Manganese exposure assessment in formula-fed infants in Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA)
Dominique Turck
Torsten Bohn
Jacqueline Castenmiller
Stefaan de Henauw
Karen-Ildico Hirsch-Ernst
Helle Katrine Knutsen
Alexandre Maciuk
Inge Mangelsdorf
Harry J McArdle
Kristina Pentieva
Alfonso Siani
Frank Thies
Sophia Tsabouri
Marco Vinceti
Julia Bornhorst
Francesco Cubadda
Aymeric Dopter
Rex FitzGerald
Agnès de Sesmaisons Lecarré
Pedro das Neves Ferreira
Lucia Fabiani
Zsuzsanna Horvath
Leonard Matijević
Androniki Naska

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for manganese. Systematic reviews of the literature of human and animal data were conducted to assess evidence regarding excess manganese intake (including authorised manganese salts) and the priority adverse health effect, i.e. manganese-induced neurotoxicity. Available human and animal studies support neurotoxicity as a critical effect, however, data are not sufficient and suitable to characterise a dose-response relationship and identify a reference point for manganese-induced neurotoxicity. In the absence of adequate data to establish an UL, estimated background dietary intakes (i.e. manganese intakes from natural dietary sources only) observed among high consumers (95th percentile) were used to provide an indication of the highest level of intake where there is reasonable confidence on the absence of adverse effects. A safe level of intake of 8 mg/day was established for adults ≥ 18 years (including pregnant and lactating women) and ranged between 2 and 7 mg/day for other population groups. The application of the safe level of intake is more limited than an UL because the intake level at which the risk of adverse effects starts to increase is not defined.

Indexed as

manganesesafe level of intaketolerable upper intake levelUL

Identifiers

PMID38075631
PMCPMC10704406
OpenAlexW4389487382

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.